Presidential Power, Congress, and the Two-Party System
This paper examines the scope and limitations of modern presidential power in the United States, arguing that while presidents have historically expanded their influence beyond what Article II of the Constitution explicitly grants, congressional control over the budget, appointments, and veto overrides serves as the primary brake on executive authority. The paper also analyzes how the two-party system distorts public perception of presidential power, using the Iraq War authorization as a case study. Finally, it evaluates existing constitutional constraints on the presidency, including the checks-and-balances system and the 22nd Amendment, assessing their effectiveness in the contemporary partisan political environment.
- Presidential Power and Its Constitutional Limits: Congress's budget control limits presidential authority
- The Two-Party System and Public Perception of Presidential Power: Partisan politics distorts public view of executive power
- Constitutional Constraints on the Presidency: Checks, balances, and the 22nd Amendment constrain presidents
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its argument in constitutional text (Article II, the 22nd Amendment) while connecting those provisions to real-world political dynamics, giving the analysis both legal and practical weight.
- It uses a concrete historical example — bipartisan congressional authorization of the Iraq War — to challenge a widespread public misconception about presidential unilateralism, making an abstract argument tangible.
- The paper maintains a consistent thesis across all three sections: that congressional power (especially the power of the purse) is the decisive constraint on the presidency, regardless of how powerful the executive appears.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper employs counter-intuitive argumentation: it takes a widely held belief (that the modern presidency is increasingly dominant) and systematically dismantles it by pointing to structural, budgetary, and constitutional mechanisms that keep executive power subordinate to legislative authority. This technique — stating the popular view, then offering evidence that complicates or refutes it — is an effective way to frame a political science argument.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized into three thematically distinct sections. The first establishes the baseline argument about congressional financial control over presidential action. The second examines how partisan politics and media framing inflate the perceived power of the president. The third surveys formal constitutional constraints, culminating in an evaluation of the 22nd Amendment. Each section includes its own reference list, reflecting a modular assignment structure. Total length is concise — appropriate for an undergraduate policy or political science course.
Presidential Power and Its Constitutional Limits
While the scope of modern presidential power far exceeds the very limited but potent powers that the President is granted in Article II of the Constitution, it does not appear that those powers have increased dramatically over the last twenty years, especially when one compares presidential power with congressional power. It is important to keep in mind that most presidents have "used their implied and informal presidential powers to enhance their personal influence" (Annenberg Foundation, 2014). This began with Washington and, in many ways, has grown over the course of history, resulting in an Executive Branch that is more powerful than was anticipated at the time of the Constitution's drafting.
However, while the President is nominally the head of the Executive Branch, it is critical to recognize that the Executive is extremely dependent upon Congress. "Congress controls the purse strings for all the branches of government; Congress has approval authority over appointments within the Executive and Judicial branches and the Military" (Lillebo, 2007). What this means is that the President may be exercising an increasing amount of power relative to what is explicitly outlined in the Constitution, but he cannot exercise that power without Congress — and this congressional authority goes well beyond the power to override a presidential veto. Congress controls the money, which means it always has the power to limit the impact of the Executive.
In a partisan system, this has translated into presidents wielding more power when the congressional majority shares the President's political affiliation, or when that majority is moderate. As a result, presidential power can only effectively expand if Congress allows the budget to pay for the exercise of those powers. By controlling the budget, Congress ultimately controls the President.
Annenberg Foundation. (2014). The modern presidency: Tools of power. Retrieved September 16, 2014, from Annenberg Learner website:
Lillebo, P. (2007). The Congress, political parties, and fair representation. Retrieved September 16, 2014, from Blue Ridge Journal website: http://www.blueridgejournal.com/brj-congress.htm
The Two-Party System and Public Perception of Presidential Power
The two-party system is so profoundly dysfunctional in modern America that it is difficult to adequately describe how it has affected the rights of individual Americans and their perception of government. Both major political parties have used propaganda and misinformation to maximize the public's sense of presidential power. When a President does something unpopular, members of the rival party point fingers at the President as though he acted alone, without acknowledging that very few presidential actions — including Executive Orders — are possible without Congress providing the necessary funding. It is, however, easier to play politics with those decisions and attempt to capitalize on them in the next election cycle than it is to help the average American understand the foundational role that Congress necessarily plays in any presidential exercise of power. Moreover, even the President's own political party fuels this belief in an ever-expanding presidency by taking credit for popular decisions the President has supported.
For example, it has become very common for Democrats to blame George W. Bush for the second Iraq War. While Bush clearly pushed for that war, it is critical to keep in mind that there was strong bipartisan support for the conflict in Congress and that Congress formally authorized the use of military force (Govtrack, 2004). Yet the perception remains that it was somehow Bush's war alone. What citizens should consider is not the illusion of unchecked presidential power, but the very real demonstration of executive limitations that unfolded when the minority political party was able to shut down the government for an extended period of time (Tafel, 2013). Despite this, many people continue to believe that the President holds greater power than Congress — a belief that is, factually, simply not true. Both political parties, nonetheless, continue to reinforce it.
Govtrack. (2004). Authorization for use of military force against Iraq. Retrieved September 16, 2014, from Govtrack website: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s237
Tafel, R. (2013, October 8). The only upside to the shutdown: Realizing we need a new political system. Retrieved September 16, 2014, from The Huffington Post website:
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.